1. Create a canopy coach program. Two ratings, basic and advanced. Basic coaches can teach the skills required for and sign off on the B license canopy card. Advanced coaches can teach swooping and the skills required to fly higher performance canopies at higher wingloadings and sign off on high performance endorsements.

Two ratings are needed - being a swooper or flying a high performance canopy is not required to teach basic skills, but it is required to teach high performance canopy flight.

High performance endorsements could be done as a course or one on one. Tap one of the factory teams to design a course.

2. Implement Brian Germain's chart as wingloading limits for all jumpers up to 500 jumps. Limit Crossfire/Katana class canopies to C license or higher with a high performance endorsement. Limit crossbraced and future swoop specific or very high performance canopies to D license with a high performance endorsement.

Enforcing a BSR shouldn't be a huge burden on dzo's and S&TA's; it should make their lives easier. Brian's chart is easy to read and understand and would be easy to enforce, and it allows for a reasonable downsizing progression. It doesn't require S&TA's to spend (unpaid) time verifying performance standards. Instead, they could simply look at a jumper's license card to determine if they are considered to be qualified to jump a particular type of canopy, and their logbook to determine if the wingloading is within allowable limits.

Make it waiverable so the truly gifted and dedicated noobs can progress faster.

Not only will this keep 100 jump wonders from breaking themselves on higher wingloadings, it will also keep swoop specific canopies out of the hands of those who don't/won't get some form of standardized training.

Do you have a specific number in mind for wingloading and/or where is the line for type of canopy ("fully" elliptical or crossbraced) where the advanced canopy training is required?

For WL, the chart tops out at about 1.5. That makes a good point above which to require a high performance endorsement. For canopy type, minimum C license (200 jumps) with an endorsement for Crossfire/Katana class canopies up to 1.5; minimum D license (500 jumps) with an endorsement for crossbraced canopies and/or wingloadings exceeding 1.5.

I don't think that we need more ratings. The new system allows S&TAs, among others, to appoint qualified persons to teach canopy control. How about just improving that part of the AFF-I course so that instructors can teach all the basic stuff (hint: that's what we are already supposed to be doing as part of the AFF progression) What would be more helpful is if USPA published some course materials (perhaps licensed from some of the more successful professionals who have been doing this for many years) to help those who have been approved so that they can actually put on a comprehensive course. Don't you think?

What ever method of wing-loading restricts is chosen I hope is from the KISS school of thought. A chart, a .1 increase per 100 jumps, whatever, but it should be easily determinable. I agree that we don't want to burden folks with enforcement issues

Good overall approach. I think the one thing that's missing is a list of skills they'd have to either be tested on or guaranteed to have, so that signoffs don't become "yeah, you looked good landing yesterday, let me sign you off here." That's a detail of the course implementation.

I've also gotten two comments on Germain's chart that I think are valid. One is that the high side is too restrictive and the other is that the low side isn't broken down enough. I can work on that (take the trends already in the chart and extrapolate them to more weight breakdowns.)

I think the one thing that's missing is a list of skills they'd have to either be tested on or guaranteed to have, so that signoffs don't become "yeah, you looked good landing yesterday, let me sign you off here." That's a detail of the course implementation.

Exactly. I envision a proficiency card much like the new B card, but focused on high performance skills. I don't have the knowledge to suggest what items need to be covered and I'd hope the only input used for that would be from those who have both knowledge and experience in that area.

In reply to:

What would be more helpful is if USPA published some course materials (perhaps licensed from some of the more successful professionals who have been doing this for many years) to help those who have been approved so that they can actually put on a comprehensive course. Don't you think?

It wasn't all that difficult to put together a basic skills course using the outline in the SIM. The new B license card is fairly clear on what skills need to be taught/practiced. That's all that is needed to put on a comprehensive basic skills course. Although a video camera or two and someone willing to spend the day on the ground teaching it are also required.

One advantage to having canopy coach ratings would be at least some standardization of the training for high performance flight. Another would be that the S&TA wouldn't have to know a person and/or their background to appoint them; just like with an AFF rating, if you have the rating, you can teach the course.

>How about just improving that part of the AFF-I course so that instructors can teach all >the basic stuff (hint: that's what we are already supposed to be doing as part of the >AFF progression)

Because you can't teach flare turns until you're at a loading where it's possible. On a large canopy the flare is over so fast that flare turning has very little discernible result. And honestly, during AFF if they are getting even flares and landing well they are accomplishing the objectives of AFF - learning basic skydiving skills in a controlled environment under a forgiving canopy.

Most skydivers get some very basic canopy instruction during AFF - and that's it. That, I think, is what has to change. People aren't dying because they can't flare a Manta, they're dying because they can't turn their Katana 99 safely when they get cut off at 100 feet.

>How about just improving that part of the AFF-I course so that instructors can teach all >the basic stuff (hint: that's what we are already supposed to be doing as part of the >AFF progression)

Because you can't teach flare turns until you're at a loading where it's possible. On a large canopy the flare is over so fast that flare turning has very little discernible result. And honestly, during AFF if they are getting even flares and landing well they are accomplishing the objectives of AFF - learning basic skydiving skills in a controlled environment under a forgiving canopy.

Most skydivers get some very basic canopy instruction during AFF - and that's it. That, I think, is what has to change. People aren't dying because they can't flare a Manta, they're dying because they can't turn their Katana 99 safely when they get cut off at 100 feet.

First of all the problem you identified, that not everyone is getting canopy control instruction beyond AFF, is what the new B license requirements are trying to fix. For the record, I wasn't suggesting that jumpers should be taught every single skill during AFF. We are in total agreement that some skills need to be learned later. A good skydiver should never stop learning. I guess the point I wanted to make is that as an Instructor I should be able to teach flair turns. Now, I know that I can teach that, but can all Instructors? I'm not talking advanced swooping, I'm talking about canopy skills that all licensed jumps should learn.

If we come up with another rating and call it canopy coach, it creates an additional hoop for someone like myself to jump through. Then someone like me, who does not want to spend a bunch of money getting a new rating won't be able to teach canopy control, but someone with a freshly minted "canopy coach card" who just squeaked by with the minimum requirements will. How does that make things better?

Also the guy on the Katana 99 (actually its 97, i had one ;) ) might well be in the 500-1000 range like I was when I had that canopy. A lot of the proposed rules I've seen stop telling jumpers what they should jump at 500. Personally I would rather see the .1 increase in wing loading per hundred jumps rule that goes up to 1000 jumps than for the USPA to create more ratings. Unless there is an epidemic of unqualified people trying to teach basic canopy courses then I think a new rating is a solution looking for a problem.

It wasn't all that difficult to put together a basic skills course using the outline in the SIM. The new B license card is fairly clear on what skills need to be taught/practiced. That's all that is needed to put on a comprehensive basic skills course. Although a video camera or two and someone willing to spend the day on the ground teaching it are also required.

One advantage to having canopy coach ratings would be at least some standardization of the training for high performance flight. Another would be that the S&TA wouldn't have to know a person and/or their background to appoint them; just like with an AFF rating, if you have the rating, you can teach the course.

All you need may be the card and a SIM but having just that stuff is not optimal. One thing that impressed me about Brian Germain's canopy course was the wonderful book you get with it. Its been a great reference tool that I can read and think back to what he said. Now it doesn't need to be a published books on amazon, but visual aids, reference sheets stock video of certain maneuvers, etc. stand out and stick with students. Another example is the great videos of the various AFF levels that Jay Stokes made. Rather than do a new rating put the effort into creating or licensing stuff like that.

If we turn it into a rating it will just drive the price up courses up with little benefit to the students. Realistically, how many of the best canopy pilots and instructors are going to get a rating that only entitles you to teach a special ground school and video other peoples landings?

Most skydivers get some very basic canopy instruction during AFF - and that's it. That, I think, is what has to change. People aren't dying because they can't flare a Manta, they're dying because they can't turn their Katana 99 safely when they get cut off at 100 feet.

It has changed as the 1st of the year. So i dont get your point.

People are forgetting a whole other side of this. The manufacturers. You guys will be putting limits on what they can sell to who. At least asking them too. Just food for thought.

People are forgetting a whole other side of this. The manufacturers. You guys will be putting limits on what they can sell to who. At least asking them too. Just food for thought.

They can still sell whatever they'd like to whoever they'd like. There are still dz's in the US where BSR's are ignored. Skydiving is an international sport; most manufacturers are happy to sell to non-US based jumpers.

And besides, they've had over ten years to step up and they haven't. PD will send a Velo demo to people with 200 jumps right now....

Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in the past, say, 3 years in the groups you wish to regulate, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed WL rules?

Why the hell would you want more ratings? The problem is the term AFF-I. AFF focuses too much on free fall which is only a part of the sky dive. Any instructor should be a complete skydiver capable of teaching both basic canopy and free fall and packing and safety procedures. How about instead of another rating you make canopy control part of the instructors rating? Oh wait, it is! Sure it could be covered more but it is in there, just seems a lot of people don't bother to teach it and that is why people do dumb shit under canopy.

So why not teach more in the A licence course, instead of all the solo jumps why aren't there coached canopy jumps (just like a basic canopy course, hop and pop with a pre-jump brief and set of tasks followed by a video of the landing and a debrief). Hell if it could be worked a coached canopy jump with an instructor and 2 way radio, though I can see logistical problems with that idea.

Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in the past, say, 3 years in the groups you wish to regulate, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed WL rules?

Nope. All I have is anecdotal evidence. USPA has this information available if you really want it.

I don't need it, because for me fatalities are only a small part of the issue. From what I've seen, injuries lead to far more former skydivers than fatalities do. Unfortunately we don't have good data on injuries beyond anecdotal evidence, and we aren't likely to ever have it. This may be a logically valid reason to continue to do nothing, but imho it is not a good reason.

The other area that is important to me is keeping swoop specific canopies out of the hands of skydivers until after they have a significant number of jumps and time in sport and have received some training on how to fly those canopies in a reasonably safe manner. Not to keep them from killing or maiming themselves, but to keep them from killing, maiming or scaring others out of the sport. There is no data other than anecdotal evidence of how many people are choosing not to skydive because they are scared to be in the air with a 250 jump mad skiiz wonder under a Velo. I know a few. I'm sure you do too.

Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in the past, say, 3 years in the groups you wish to regulate, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed WL rules?

Just for the USA - 51 total fatalities involving landings in some form or another from 01-07-04 to 12-27-11. Remove 2 CRW downplane fatalities, 2 military, and 4 tandems leaves 43 fatalities. Of those 43, 8 did not have info available on total number of jumps - that leaves 35. Of those 35, 23 jumpers had between 500 and 5400 total jumps. 12 had between 3 and 475 total jumps. Of those 12, one was a stall at a low altitude, one was an AFF student who buried a toggle on a 280 main, one had 100 jumps and turned low on a 210 main loaded at 1.0, and one 99 jumps and made a low turn on a 190 main loaded at 1.1. That leaves 8 that a w/l restriction might have saved.

Just for the USA - 51 total fatalities involving landings in some form or another from 01-07-04 to 12-27-11. Remove 2 CRW downplane fatalities, 2 military, and 4 tandems leaves 43 fatalities. Of those 43, 8 did not have info available on total number of jumps - that leaves 35. Of those 35, 23 jumpers had between 500 and 5400 total jumps. 12 had between 3 and 475 total jumps. Of those 12, one was a stall at a low altitude, one was an AFF student who buried a toggle on a 280 main, one had 100 jumps and turned low on a 210 main loaded at 1.0, and one 99 jumps and made a low turn on a 190 main loaded at 1.1. That leaves 8 that a w/l restriction might have saved.

And how many of those with above 500 jumps would have benefited from early mandatory W/L restrictions and training?

You can’t look back and what if, we can’t change the past but we can make a difference in the future.

People are forgetting a whole other side of this. The manufacturers. You guys will be putting limits on what they can sell to who. At least asking them too. Just food for thought.

Not manufacturers per se, but for dealers and funjumpers wanting to sell gear, yes the local market will change. We saw that happen over here. There's a whole lot bigger (new+2nd hand) market now for 190-170-150 sqft canopies of the spectre/sabre2 class. Anything smaller there is a much smaller market for now, as only >400 - >700 jumpers can jump them.

Is that a bad thing?

There are also oppertunities here to rent out gear for longer, as jumpers may choose to wait until 100+ jumps to buy their first set of gear because then they can jump a size smaller. Also some dealers here have very nice trade-in deals for main canopies.

Manufacturers will still sell gear, just experience a shift in common sizes and models.

You are dismissing the fact that the ideas put forth by Bill and Lisa have mandatory training as part of the progression. This means that most of the 35 incident would have benefited from more training.

I am dismissing nothing. I just posted the stats. Just for informations sake, here are the total numbers listed for the 23 >500 jump fatalities (in no particular order) - 4000, 4300, 1000+, 1200, 550, 3000+, 1000+, 4000+, 3000+, 1100, 2000, 1100, 2000+, 3500+, 2000+, 665, 1000+, 1000, 5400, 1600, 1100, 500, 617. I am all for more training, I believe there are very few (if any) in this sport who would not benefit from additional training. I personally do not believe the data available supports a w/l restriction as doing a whole lot of good to reduce the current fatality trend. I DO believe that if we had access to total injury data (meaning incidents resulting in a broken bone or worse) we would be seeing a different picture. I am not really for a w/l restriction, but I do believe it would reduce injuries - fatalities I am not so sure about. I would definitely be for mandatory canopy control courses provided they could be held at all DZs and not just USPA DZs as is currently the case with the ratings courses.

You are dismissing the fact that the ideas put forth by Bill and Lisa have mandatory training

He's not necessarily dismissing it; but just looking at one part of the equation.

In any case, people may have different thoughts about: a) mandatory wing loading limits, and b) mandatory canopy training.

It sure is tough to predict how large effect of changes will be for the the less direct effects.

If someone with 2000 jumps dies in a swoop, would he have avoided that had he been more limited in his downsizing progression? We'd have to know his exactly number of jumps and canopies to even decide whether to put him into some category of downsized too fast vs. not too fast. (Other than some sort of tautological "he died swooping... therefore he downsized too fast.")

Fair enough. You also made a conclusion "This means that most of the 35 incident would have benefited from more training."

Neither of us can prove them, so I guess its all moot.

Edited to add on second thought, most of these guys would be the ones teaching a canopy course, so I am not sure what good the proposed training would have done them - if you require training for each license and a D is 500 jumps then the majority of these guys were years advanced from the last time they ever would have had "mandatory" training. Not that I am against mandatory training (like I am against mandatory w/l restrictions).

With the stats we dont know of those how many took canopy courses. How many were restricted by there instructors ect. The data can only give a small window of the big picture. We would need to know each jumpers history to make numbers give us the whole picture. Im against any restrictions. I think education is a better way. wing loading charts are a good guideline. Just against it being any kind of BSR.

Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in the past, say, 3 years in the groups you wish to regulate, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed WL rules?

Nope. All I have is anecdotal evidence. USPA has this information available if you really want it.

So you can't actually justify your proposal with data. OK.

In reply to:

I don't need it, because for me fatalities are only a small part of the issue. From what I've seen, injuries lead to far more former skydivers than fatalities do. Unfortunately we don't have good data on injuries beyond anecdotal evidence, and we aren't likely to ever have it. This may be a logically valid reason to continue to do nothing, but imho it is not a good reason.

The other area that is important to me is keeping swoop specific canopies out of the hands of skydivers until after they have a significant number of jumps and time in sport and have received some training on how to fly those canopies in a reasonably safe manner. Not to keep them from killing or maiming themselves, but to keep them from killing, maiming or scaring others out of the sport. There is no data other than anecdotal evidence of how many people are choosing not to skydive because they are scared to be in the air with a 250 jump mad skiiz wonder under a Velo. I know a few. I'm sure you do too.

I would not support ANY new rule that the proposer cares so little about that they can't be bothered to do their homework to justify it.

Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in the past, say, 3 years in the groups you wish to regulate, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed WL rules?

You are dismissing the fact that the ideas put forth by Bill and Lisa have mandatory training as part of the progression. This means that mostsome of the 35 incident would may have benefited from more training.

Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in the past, say, 3 years in the groups you wish to regulate, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed WL rules?